I'm not defining capitalism as it's laid out in the Wealth of Nations.

Slashdot is the refuge of assburgers victims who've lived such a sheltered life for the 30 years since they read Atlas Shrugged as teenagers that they think they actually made themselves, so I'm using the Randian version, which, like all aspys, Slashdotters are conveniently forgetful of the moment it conflicts with their worldview.

I agree with the original poster and I know exactly what capitalism is. The idea that capitalism can exist in a vacuum of rules will give you something close to HK style capitalism which in the end is counter productive because it makes the opportunity costs too high for the small players

That's pretty much it.

Capitalism is unrestricted private enterprise, like seen during the Gilded Age of Rockefeller and Carnegie, where there are no rules. The moment you start regulating, limiting, or restricting financiers and industrialists, you are engaging in socialism.

It has nothing to do with capitalism. It has everything to do with unregulated corporate greed. They are NOT the same things. The same kind of greed was seen very prominently in countries that called themselves Socialist and even Communist. So don't blame "capitalism" for it. It's cronyism, plain and simple.

The same thing happened when women went to work, when they went to medical school, when they went into politics, as you said. And eventually, they become accepted by their peers, and any hate they get from the public is just like the hate that their male counterparts get from the public. Except that instead of "Go fucking smoke some pole, you Kenyan Muslim faggot", they hear "Get your bitch-ass in the kitchen, you stupid cunt."